This study examines the relationship of social-comparison concern, comfort, and self-efficacy to course performance and program persistence in a small-group learning environment. As part of the study, 205 undergraduates in a peer-led, small-group science learning program were surveyed at the beginning and end of the academic term; surveys addressed self-efficacy for the course, comfort participating in the small groups, and concern about comparison with others in the groups. Results indicated that while social-comparison concern and comfort were unrelated to prior academic preparation (as measured by grade point average and SAT mathematics score), they were related to self-efficacy, ethnic minority status, and gender, as well as to persistence in the program and final grade.
BanduraA (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
2.
Bouffard-BouchardTParentSPariveeS (1991) Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development14: 153–64.
3.
BornWKRevelleWPintoL (2002) Improving biology performance with workshop groups. Journal of Science Education and Technology11: 347–65.
4.
ChamdimbaPC (2003) Gender-related differences in working style during cooperative learning in secondary school mathematics: A Malawian case study. In: BurtonL (ed.) Which Way Social Justice in Mathematics Education?Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 153–68.
5.
CohenE (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research64(1): 1–35.
6.
DillenbourgPBakerMBlayeAO’MalleyC (1996) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In: SpadaEReimanP (eds) Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 189–211.
7.
DijkstraPKuyperHVan der WerfGBuunkAPVan der ZeeY (2008) Social comparison in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research78(4): 828–79.
8.
DraneDSmithHDLightGPintoLSwaratS (2005) The Gateway Science Workshop program: Enhancing student performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion. Journal of Science Education and Technology14(3): 337–52.
9.
DillenbourgPBakerMBlayeAO’MalleyC (1996) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In SpadaEReimanP (eds) Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 189–211.
10.
DreyfusAE (2002) How are we doing? Steady growth in implementing peer-led team learning. Progressions:Peer-Led Team Learning3(3–4): 1–5.
11.
DweckC (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist41(10): 1040–8.
12.
ElliotA (1999) Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist34(3): 169–89.
13.
FelderRBrentR (2007) Cooperative learning. In: MabroukPA (ed.) Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences. ACS Symposium Series 970. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 34–53.
14.
GijlersHde JongT (2005) The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching42(3): 264–83.
15.
GoodTLBrophyJE (2008) Looking in Classrooms, 10th edn.New York: Pearson.
16.
GosserDRothV (1998) The workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team learning. Journal of Chemical Education75(2): 188.
17.
GosserDRothVGafneyLKampmeierJStrozakVVarma-NelsonPRadelSWeinerM (1996) Workshop chemistry: Overcoming the barriers to student success. The Chemical Educator [online] 1(1): 2–16.
18.
HazelwoodCRothKHasbachCHoekwaterELigettCLindquistBPeasleyKRosaenC (1992) Gender and discourse: The unfolding ‘living text’ of a science lesson (Tech. Rep. No. 60). Michigan State University, East Lansing: Center for the Teaching and Learning of Elementary Subjects.
19.
HunterDGambellTRandhawaB (2005) Gender gaps in group listening and speaking: issues in social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Educational Review57(3): 329–55.
20.
JoinerRMesserDLightPLittletonK (1998) The effects of gender, expectations of success and social comparison on children’s performance on a computer-based task. Educational Psychology18(3): 319–26.
21.
LiemADLauSNieY (2008) The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology33: 486–512.
22.
LindowJAWilkinsonLCPetersonPL (1985) Antecedents and consequences of verbal disagreements during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology77: 658–67.
23.
LockheedMEHarrisAM (1984) Cross-sex collaborative learning in elementary classrooms. American Educational Research Journal21: 275–94.
24.
LockheedMEHarrisAMNemcefWP (1983) Sex and social influence: Does sex function as a status characteristic in mixed-sex groups of children?Journal of Educational Psychology75(6): 877–88.
25.
LyleKRobinsonW (2003) A statistical evaluation: Peer-led team learning in an organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education79: 132–3.
26.
MonteilJMHuguetP (1993a) The influence of social comparison situations on individual cognitive task performance: Experimental illustrations. International Journal of Psychology28: 627–43.
27.
MonteilJMHuguetP (1993b) The social context of human learning: Some prospects for the study of socio-cognitive regulations. European Journal of Psychology of Education8: 131–50.
28.
MugnyGButeraFFalomirJM (2001) Social influence and threat in social comparison between self and source’s competence: Relational factors affecting the transmission of knowledge. In: ButeraFMugnyG (eds) Social influence in social reality. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe and Huber, pp. 225–48.
29.
PajaresF (1996) Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research66: 543–78.
30.
PazosPDraneDLightGMunkebyA (2007) A peer-led team learning program for freshmen engineering students: Impact on retention. In: Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Honolulu, June 2007. Available at: http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id = 4066.
31.
PintrichPRSmithDAGarciaTMcKeachieWJ (1993) Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement53: 801–13.
32.
RidgewayCLSmith-LovinL (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology25: 191–216.
33.
Robinson-StaveleyK.CooperJ (1990) Mere presence, gender and reactions to computers: Studying human-computer interaction in the social context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology26: 168–83.
34.
SalehMLazonderAWDe JongT (2005) Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science33: 105–19.
35.
SchunkDH (1995) Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In: MadduxJE (ed.) Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 281–303.
36.
SteeleCM (1997) A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist52: 613–29.
37.
TienLTRothVKampmeierJA (2002) Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching39: 606–32.
38.
UnderwoodJUnderwoodGWoodD (2000) When does gender matter? Interactions during computer based problem solving. Learning and Instruction10: 447–62.
39.
WebbNM (1980) An analysis of group interaction and mathematical errors in heterogeneous ability groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology50: 266–76.
40.
WebbNM (1984) Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology76: 33–4.
41.
WebbNM (1995) Group collaboration in assessment: multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis17(2): 239–61.
42.
WebbNMKenderskiCM (1984) Student interaction and learning in small group and whole class settings. In PetersonPLWilkinsonLCHallinanM (eds) The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes. New York: Academic Press, pp. 153–70.
43.
WilkinsonIAGFungIYY (2002) Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research (Special issue) 37: 425–47.
